6 Comments

Speaking without having the stature of others in the conversation has not slowed me down before, so here goes:

If dictionaries define Pharisaic as what you indicated, so be it. To retain the meaning as Bainbridge intended (quite appropriately I would say) then, change the sentence to say “in the tradition of the Pharisees”. The meaning that we are going for calls out the SCOTUS behaviour of using fine points and distinctions to address the formation of governing rules in a dogmatic way. This is clearly what happened.

Speaking without having the stature of others in the conversation has not slowed me down before, so here goes:

If dictionaries define Pharisaic as what you indicated, so be it. To retain the meaning as Bainbridge intended (quite appropriately I would say) then, change the sentence to say “in the tradition of the Pharisees”. The meaning that we are going for calls out the SCOTUS behaviour of using fine points and distinctions to address the formation of governing rules in a dogmatic way. This is clearly what happened.

1. A member of the Pharisees, an ancient Jewish sect whose strict interpretation of the Mosaic law led to an obsessive concern with the rules covering the details of everyday life.
2. derog
Anyone more careful of the outward forms than of the spirit of religion.
3. derog
A self-righteous or hypocritical person.
Derivative: Pharisaic
adj

1. A member of the Pharisees, an ancient Jewish sect whose strict interpretation of the Mosaic law led to an obsessive concern with the rules covering the details of everyday life.
2. derog
Anyone more careful of the outward forms than of the spirit of religion.
3. derog
A self-righteous or hypocritical person.
Derivative: Pharisaic
adj

Thanks for writing, BG. In my understanding, the problem with the Pharisees is that (1) outward appearances were stressed so much, (2) they tried so hard to appear holy publically; and (3) strict application of rules (many of which on their face have nothing to do with living a good, moral life) seemed more important than the spirit that was at the heart of the religion.
In the context of the Ten Commandments and other Religion Clause cases, the Justices are are not applying or making rules for the sake of rules; instead, they appear to be trying to meet the spirit of the Constitutional guarantees and of our national history and culture. That cannot be done with simplistic rules, unless you have the one clear rule that the First Amendment seems to imply: nothing done by the Government should establish or favor religion. Once you try to be neutral to both religion and non-religion freedoms, things have to get complicated.
Those who insist on having the relgious icons in public spaces seem, to me, to be acting as if outward appearances are paramount or crucial (despite the very unholy behavior of many of the politicians who scream the loudest for the public displays). That seems quite Pharisaical to me.

Thanks for writing, BG. In my understanding, the problem with the Pharisees is that (1) outward appearances were stressed so much, (2) they tried so hard to appear holy publically; and (3) strict application of rules (many of which on their face have nothing to do with living a good, moral life) seemed more important than the spirit that was at the heart of the religion.
In the context of the Ten Commandments and other Religion Clause cases, the Justices are are not applying or making rules for the sake of rules; instead, they appear to be trying to meet the spirit of the Constitutional guarantees and of our national history and culture. That cannot be done with simplistic rules, unless you have the one clear rule that the First Amendment seems to imply: nothing done by the Government should establish or favor religion. Once you try to be neutral to both religion and non-religion freedoms, things have to get complicated.
Those who insist on having the relgious icons in public spaces seem, to me, to be acting as if outward appearances are paramount or crucial (despite the very unholy behavior of many of the politicians who scream the loudest for the public displays). That seems quite Pharisaical to me.

. . . From 2003 to 2009, f/k/a ["formerly known as"] was the home of "breathless punditry" and "one-breath poetry." It is all here in our Archives. You'll find commentary on lawyers and legal ethics, politics, culture, & more, plus "real" haiku by over two dozen Honored Guest Poets.